[Asrg] Double-spending of electronic coins

[John Leslie <john at jlc.net>]

Bart Schaefer <schaefer at brasslantern.com> wrote:
>  
> Since this is a research group, here's a pointer to some research done
> by someone else:
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832

   This paper concerns early detection of double-spending in the case
where "the central bank" is not involved in the transaction. (If
you're curious how they do it, read the paper: it's simple enough.)

   Actual _prevention_ of double-spending is simple enough in the
case where the "central bank" _is_ involved. I claim it's even easier
in cases where the _issuing_ bank is involved. (We recognize, of
course that in international commerce it's politically difficult to
agree on a single "central bank", and thus it becomes expensive.)

   I would further claim that it would be simple enough, in the case
of ePostage, to have the receiving MTA specify a set of acceptable
issuing banks and ensure that each of them _could_ be involved at
the time of the transaction (which happens at SMTP time). This would
eliminate the double-spending problem between the only two parties
that must be able to interact without previous arrangement.

--
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg